Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

I wonder how open-border libertarians resolve traveling stupid voters problem? I used to be an open border libertarian and kind of still partially do. But there is a catch. Imagine if voters in Venezuela are stupid. They are so stupid they pick a system that lead to poverty.

Under open border libertarianism, those people can come to Brazil, US, Canada, once their own country mess up, and then they will vote for socialism again and then they will bankrupt those countries still, and move and move and move spreading stupidity. In fact, relatively stupid people will tend to vote for socialism because they are far more likely to benefit from a redistribution of wealth.

Under the current system, a richer country can just vet immigrants. If Venezuelan vote stupidly, they will be poor. We will all watch and know not to vote like them. It’s like going to your own house. You don’t have a right to keep people out but you have a right to keep outsider out till you think otherwise. It would have made sense if countries have “owners” and we consider countries to “own” their territories.

However, the current system, while not perfect is fine.

Some libertarians would argue that the solution is to honor NAP.

Immigrants can come but cannot vote for welfare, for example. This is not truly practical. Politic is a bit like, well, surprised surprised, libertarian businesses.

In normal business, if you own something, others cannot take it easily. If they do you call cops.In normal businesses, right or wrong often matter because we have cops enforcing those “right” from “wrong things”.

In politic, there isn’t really any moral. In politic there is no “cop” you can call. You cannot make voting for welfare illegal. If 50 percents of the population need welfare and they can try to get it through political protest they’ll get it through mass riots and terrorism.

In normal life, if someone seize your land, you call cops. In politic, if a country seizes another country’s land then we just blame the victim for being weak.

We have an international community that sort of help arbitrage this sort of thing but not by much. There are many ways to play around. A country can say they’re threatened or that the people on those land actually want to join and so on and so on.

Interests are maintained through power. People that live near you will always have power over you and hence letting them channel their wish through voting may be better then letting them come and not letting them vote.

Notable exception to this is Dubai where 90% of the people are immigrants. However, I am not sure if Dubai’s system can work well in western countries. They have religions to keep people in line and the governments don’t have to worry about winning votes.

Dubai, however, does not practice open border but have simpler immigration vetting that I think is a good model for their country.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.